by Max Reyes
SFVYD Editorial Director
Democrats now have the great fortune of controlling the Oval Office and being the majority party on Capitol Hill. But let’s not get too confident. It is a critical time for young Democrats to remain involved with politics and recruit others to do the same. As you know, the elections will be held on Tuesday, November 2nd and Republicans are attempting to make a comeback to defeat and unseat as many Democrats as possible. Nothing shocking, but we’ve all heard about the strong possibility that the GOP actually has a shot at winning the lower House back.
According to an article in “The Hill,” non-partisan political analysts are actually backing up this claim. The article sites that the Cook Political Report, a well-known race ratings newsletter, indicates that “over a two-month span [between June and August], an additional 12 Democratic-held congressional seats have moved into ‘toss-up’ territory from previous ‘likely Democrat’ or ‘lean Democrat’ categories.” I checked out the website for their latest projections and there are a total of 38 Democratic-held seats in trouble, while only two Republican-held districts are contested.
We have to remain diligent in the fight to keep our fellow Democrats in their seats as well as elect more into political office. The Republicans’ refusal to work with us at both state and federal levels has set back needed reforms. For one, the California political deadlock we face year after year with the state budget has caused important programs in areas such as health and childcare to be largely underfunded. For the budget that just passed, Democrats were willing to compromise with the other party by making cuts to certain programs, but Republicans didn’t budge to increase any revenue to fund necessary social services in our state.
At the federal level, Republicans are refusing to work across party lines to help President Obama fix our nation. In a Rolling Stones interview, President Obama stated, “I still remember going over to the Republican Caucus to meet with them and present our ideas [from the recovery package]…to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package. And on the way over, the Caucus essentially released a statement that said, ‘We're going to all vote ‘No’ as a caucus.’ And this was before we'd even had the conversation.” But yet when the Reps. run for office, they blame us for being inefficient. They would rather play political games to advance themselves even if it hurts the people they were elected to represent.
Not only do we have to keep close-minded Republicans out of office, but we also have to work hard to keep unqualified candidates from being elected. I hardly think candidates, such as Meg Whitman, with no vote history would benefit our State. While new and fresh perspectives help invigorate our government, Whitman’s conservative goals and objectives are setting herself up for failure. She would be working with a Legislature with a Democratic majority and seven other elected State Executives that wouldn’t be accountable to her. For instance, recall the series of legal battles between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Controller John Chiang when the latter refused to follow the former’s order of reducing state worker pay to the federal minimum wage.
These are just few of the many reasons you should get involved if you aren’t already in the mix. If we don’t get enough of our fellow Democrats involved during the last push for the upcoming election, we risk having out-of-touch Republican Tea Party members and candidates lacking a vote history running our government, further setting back highly needed reforms for the common person and disadvantaged communities. There are a myriad of opportunities to become involved including phone banking, precinct walking, and asking your friends and family to join you. Campaigns are always looking for volunteers to help out. The Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley (DPSFV) office holds phone banks regularly. I highly encourage you to contact their office to find out more at (818) 995-DEMS. You can also come to SFVYD general meetings, join our mailing list and Facebook page to be kept up-to-date on political happenings.
Sources used:
http://www.cookpolitical.com/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/116285-gop-chances-of-taking-house-on-the-rise
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=6
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Student Fee Hikes Hurt Young Dems: How the California State Budget Affects You
by Max Reyes, SFVYD Editorial Director
As we all know, the California State Legislature has been working on a budget that will close a $19.1 billion budget shortfall. Although much of the proposals being discussed sound discouraging, one of the aspects I feel optimistic about is the funding the State Legislative Budget Conference Committee and the Governor have proposed to allocate to higher education. Both of their proposals are planning to increase the total funding by approximately $1.2 billion.
This is rare good news considering that over the past decade our State has been cutting rather than increasing funds for high education. According to an article in the Orange County Register, student fees at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) have tripled in the past decade. Just in the past year, UC fees increased by 32 percent and CSU fees by 5 percent. That translates to an increase of $2,514 and $204, respectively. These fee hikes are very difficult for the students, especially for those from middle-income households. They’re not making enough to fully fund education themselves nor do they qualify for financial aid. As a result, many of them end up taking out loans and paying them back for a long time after graduating. That is, if they don’t drop out because of financial issues.
Hopefully the Legislature and the governor follow through with their higher education proposals for the 2010-2011 budget and don’t cut anymore funding in the future. They have already set back enough students from completing a college education - an education that will give individuals the means to get a good paying job, provide for their families and live comfortably.
Also, having a more educated populace benefits our State. According to a study conducted by UC Berkeley researchers, for every new dollar that we invest in education the State gets a net return of three dollars. Additionally, State Senator Alex Padilla noted at a “Campaign for College Opportunity” event that 40 percent of today’s national workforce is eligible for retirement. We need to get more students through college and get them ready to join the workforce.
I know firsthand how important a college education is. Had I not graduated, I know for a fact I wouldn’t be where I am right now. Cutting funds to education has literally destroyed the dreams of numerous students. I’ve spoken with countless others who have to undergo poor living conditions, work full-time, and skip meals just to get through college – some don’t even make it and decide to drop out because the financial burdens are too strenuous.
This is why it is essential for the State to follow through with its proposals to increase funding for higher education not only to give everyone the opportunity to succeed but to help our State’s economy get out of its slump. In fact, I encourage you to contact your local State Legislators telling them that you are counting on them to keep Higher Education a top priority as they work to pass a budget.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Unemployment and Young Dems: You Are Not Alone!
by Max Reyes, San Fernando Valley Young Democrats Editorial Director
One can tell that through its incredibly slow housing market, looming $19 billion budget deficit, and high unemployment rate, the California economy is in despair. Of particular concern is unemployment for individuals in our generation.
According to a recently published New York Times article, 14 percent of 18 to 29 year olds are unemployed and seeking work; and "23 percent are not even seeking a job, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total, 37 percent, is the highest in more than three decades and a rate reminiscent of the [Great Depression].”
Even for college-educated young adults, unemployment is an issue. According to the same article, a “record level” of almost 17 percent are jobless, granted many may be off to graduate school and not seeking work. The unemployment rate for this group is “5.5 percent, [which is] nearly double what it was on the eve of the Great Recession, in 2007, and the highest level — by almost two percentage points — since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started to keep records in 1994 for those with at least four years of college.”
I know that these statistics are discouraging, but for those of you out there that are jobless please know that you’re not alone. Believe me I know what it’s like to look for a job. When I graduated from college in May 2008, I started off as an intern the following month in the CA State Capitol Building. I didn’t get a permanent job until January 2009, but I did campaign work through much of the fall.
Although I had a difficult time getting a job, the contacts I’ve made through the process have proven to be invaluable. While I was still a college student, a professor said that the best way to get a job somewhere is to make at least three contacts in the field you are interested in pursuing and grab lunch with them. He explained that the purpose was to learn more about their job and what they do. At the end of the meeting, he suggested to ask for other contacts that he or she can refer you to so that you can continue to expand your network in the field.
I followed my professor’s advice and contacted a former professor who was well connected in Sacramento. He referred me to three individuals, who I set up coffees or lunches with while I was interning. They each connected me to three or four others and I repeated the process with each contact I made. By the end of the summer, you can imagine that my network expanded beyond what I could ever have imagined. Essentially, this led me to my campaign job and my first permanent job in the Capitol Building. Not only did I gain an extensive network, but I also made a lot of great friends and mentors who support me up until this day (I’m sure for a long time to come).
Aside from networking, there are other resources out there that help the unemployed. For instance, there are ways to receive low-cost automobile insurance and food assistance to hold you over until you get a job. Great resources are your State Legislators. They are equipped with information to help you through this difficult time. To find out who your local Assemblymember or State Senator is visit: www.assembly.ca.gov. I would also encourage you to contact your local Chambers of Commerce to find out if they have job fairs coming up or any programs to help those who are looking for work. Lastly, get on pertinent e-mail listservs that forward its subscribers employment opportunities.
One can tell that through its incredibly slow housing market, looming $19 billion budget deficit, and high unemployment rate, the California economy is in despair. Of particular concern is unemployment for individuals in our generation.
According to a recently published New York Times article, 14 percent of 18 to 29 year olds are unemployed and seeking work; and "23 percent are not even seeking a job, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total, 37 percent, is the highest in more than three decades and a rate reminiscent of the [Great Depression].”
Even for college-educated young adults, unemployment is an issue. According to the same article, a “record level” of almost 17 percent are jobless, granted many may be off to graduate school and not seeking work. The unemployment rate for this group is “5.5 percent, [which is] nearly double what it was on the eve of the Great Recession, in 2007, and the highest level — by almost two percentage points — since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started to keep records in 1994 for those with at least four years of college.”
I know that these statistics are discouraging, but for those of you out there that are jobless please know that you’re not alone. Believe me I know what it’s like to look for a job. When I graduated from college in May 2008, I started off as an intern the following month in the CA State Capitol Building. I didn’t get a permanent job until January 2009, but I did campaign work through much of the fall.
Although I had a difficult time getting a job, the contacts I’ve made through the process have proven to be invaluable. While I was still a college student, a professor said that the best way to get a job somewhere is to make at least three contacts in the field you are interested in pursuing and grab lunch with them. He explained that the purpose was to learn more about their job and what they do. At the end of the meeting, he suggested to ask for other contacts that he or she can refer you to so that you can continue to expand your network in the field.
I followed my professor’s advice and contacted a former professor who was well connected in Sacramento. He referred me to three individuals, who I set up coffees or lunches with while I was interning. They each connected me to three or four others and I repeated the process with each contact I made. By the end of the summer, you can imagine that my network expanded beyond what I could ever have imagined. Essentially, this led me to my campaign job and my first permanent job in the Capitol Building. Not only did I gain an extensive network, but I also made a lot of great friends and mentors who support me up until this day (I’m sure for a long time to come).
Aside from networking, there are other resources out there that help the unemployed. For instance, there are ways to receive low-cost automobile insurance and food assistance to hold you over until you get a job. Great resources are your State Legislators. They are equipped with information to help you through this difficult time. To find out who your local Assemblymember or State Senator is visit: www.assembly.ca.gov. I would also encourage you to contact your local Chambers of Commerce to find out if they have job fairs coming up or any programs to help those who are looking for work. Lastly, get on pertinent e-mail listservs that forward its subscribers employment opportunities.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Becca Doten: Don't Call Us "The Future" If You Want to Win Now
This coming weekend, Democrats from across California will be converging on Los Angeles for the annual California Democratic Party State Convention. Activists, elected officials and candidates will attend the convention to shake hands, take meetings and look for the election trifecta -- endorsements, money and volunteers.
On Saturday, candidates will also stop by theCalifornia Young Democrats' meeting, looking for a chance to address hundreds of young activists, ages 18-35, as we gather for our annual convention, which is held concurrently with the full CDP convention.
Candidates will get a minute or two to tell us why Young Democrats should engage in their campaign and, if the CYD meeting is anything like years past, they'll tell us how, at one time, they were a Young Democrat, too. In their best attempts to pander to our demographic, many will repeat the oft-used phrase that "Young Democrats are the future."
And to be fair, many of us will continue to be involved in politics and the Democratic Party for years to come, and some of us will take on additional leadership roles in the Party or run for elected office. So, in that way, we are the future. But labeling Young Dems simply as "the future" downplays the importance of our demographic now. Young voters are not a constituency to be considered in the perpetual "future." Rather, young voters are one of the most potentially powerful demographics within the Democratic Party today.
It is a very simple equation -- when young people vote, Democrats win.
Polling shows that some very important races are terrifyingly close in California. Not only will there likely be close general election races for Governor and the US Senate, but Democrats throughout the state will face Republican opponents who are banking on a historical election trend. They are hoping that, as in years past, when the party of the President changes, there will be a large shift of seats away from the Party now in power.
Gov. Tim Kaine, the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, put it bluntly: "The average president loses 28 House seats, four Senate seats and governor's races. And we're not living in average times."
We've already seen inklings of this trend. In January, the country was stunned when Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown in the race for the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat. Yes, Democrats fielded an unfortunately weak candidate in Coakley, and there were lessons learned from the defeat. But in the lessons that we take from the race, there is one that has been largely overlooked -- young voters, aged 18-29, still voted overwhelmingly for Martha Coakley. In fact, almost 60% of young voters in the Special Election voted for the Democrat, even though she only ended up with 47% of the vote.
So where was the disconnect between the young voter's choice and the final results? Only 15% of young voters went to the polls and cast ballots. This is a marked difference from 2008, when a whopping 52% of young Americans voted. It was clear in the 2008 Presidential election and it was clear in the Massachusetts Special Election -- when young people vote, Democrats win.
Issue polls show us that young voters are progressive voters. A recent Public Policy Institute of California study found that Californians age 18-34 support marriage equality 66% to 49%. Republican political strategist Dan Schnur wrote a column in the LA Times last week citing a poll that young voters - regardless of race - opposed denying services to undocumented immigrants by a 20 point margin. Schnur wrote, "age has become the primary factor determining opinion on illegal immigration in California."
And young voters don't just support progressive causes; we support the candidates who champion them. The aforementioned PPIC poll also found that Jerry Brown leads Meg Whitman 44% to 30% in voters aged 18-35 and "younger voters prefer Boxer (56% to 30% for Fiorina)." This is night and day from the results of the polls of all likely voters, where these races are neck-and-neck.
The question facing campaigns this fall is not about how to convince young voters that Democrats are on the right side of issues of importance. Our generation has demonstrated a widespread acceptance of the progressive values which, for a large part, make up the Democratic Party platform. The question is how to activate these young voters and get them to the polls.
There is no silver bullet that will turn out young voters. As with every other constituency, it takes a strategic effort and focus of resources to reach young people. Ensuring young voter turnout, and in turn ensuring Democratic victories, means more than paying us lip service. It means including young voter outreach in campaign plans and investing resources in turning out our demographic. It means having young supporters play an active role in campaigns by reaching out to millennial voters with a message that resonates on a peer-to-peer level. Young voters need to understand their stake in the election, that their vote means something to their lives and that the candidate is someone who will fight for what they believe in - which is a progressive, positive agenda.
President Barack Obama did it right. He had a message that spoke to young voters, one of hope and a new direction for our country. He took bold stances and he made sure he got the word out to young voters - on our own playing field. His use of technology was strategic and innovative and it translated traditional campaign tactics to a medium accessible to our generation.
The California Young Democrats' slogan is, "the margin of victory." In these coming elections, young voters can be the margin of victory for Democrats throughout the state. But it won't happen if there are not concerted efforts to reach out to young voters and give us a compelling reason to go to the polls.
Maybe that's why, this year, the California Young Democrats' Convention slogan is simple:We vote, Democrats win.
Editor's Note: This was originally posted on Huffington Post on April 13, 2010. See the original version here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/becca-doten/dont-call-us-the-future-i_b_535825.html
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Politics of Hatred and Fear Mongering Alive and Well - Young Democrats Must Rebuke
by Lee Weissmann, SFVYD Editorial Director
The Politics of deception, fear, and dishonesty are alive and present this week as Congress approaches a crossroads in the healthcare debate. The same politics can be witnessed in the final weekend of a local election as it enters it’s final weekend. Now more than ever Democrats, especially Young Democrats, should lead the way by fighting for our values including healthcare, education and more. Avoiding distraction and focusing on policy goals is the key to Democratic Success.
I recently attended a Truman Award Reception in Orange County and was dismayed to see signs saying “ObamaCare” and “Pelosism” with hammer and sickles as I arrived at the event outside. Speaker Pelosi was keynoting and demonstrators who hid behind the First Amendment attempted to characterize the President and Speaker of the House as Socialists because of their desire to include a public option for health insurance of all Americans.
We live an era of Limbaughism, O’Reillyism and Hannityism, that preys upon people with rhetoric disguised as factual information. Sean Hannity was recently caught distorting facts by substituting file footage on his Fox News show. The hysteria or what is truly pseudo, manufactured hysteria that is created by radical groups has perpetuated divisiveness. The reason why I believe it’s manufactured is because everyday Americans are truly most concerned with more fundamental things like having healthcare, buying presents for their loved ones this holiday season and holding down their job in the face of many tragic stories of job losses.
However, the politics of distortion is not just a Democrat versus Repbulican phemenon. Saddest of all this is a phenomenon that all too often takes place among Demorcats in primaries and run-offs. I was recently disappointed to see a “hit” piece composed that targeted SFVYD Endorsed Council District 2 Candidate Paul Krekorian accusing him of “Anti-Semitism”. This accusation could not be further from the truth as he was endorsed by SFVYD.
The 2008 Presidential Election of President Barack Obama was a referendum on the direction of our nation and on destructionist politics that was pervasive in our country. Personally, I am so disappointed to see these kind of tactics conducted often times by desperate candidates and advocates. Although because of the dominant Democratic culture that is Los Angeles politics it is easy to see how this happens. In many Democratic elections picking a candidate is akin to picking which one relative you want to give a holiday gift to. It is difficult. Inevitably you risk alienation of others whom you do not support within your own party. However, this realization often lends itself to brutal politicking that is akin to a schoolyard fistfight by fighters seeking attention. Everyone stands around and watches to see who’ll land the biggest punch.
In an ideal world we have debates where candidates hash out the issues for voters, like endorsement meetings for an example. In a perfect world we will find nuanced solutions after exhaustive debate, no matter if it’s on the policy level or within the context of elections.
The real question at this point is where do we go from here? Only time will tell what happens. Ultimately, the way people conduct themselves within the context of the campaign comes down to their own decision-making.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Fate of Pavley’s Global Warming Bill Marks the Test of Our Generation
Editor's Note: Today's blog entry was submitted by SFVYD Member Mike Young. Thanks, Mike!
The climate crisis is the single greatest challenge in human history, but there’s a blatant dichotomy between how important the issue is with how much of a priority our parent generation places on it. It’s only now that the baby boomers are beginning to retire that we’re beginning to see a precursor to what our generation will need to face. Widespread drought, increasingly intense hurricanes, and the polar ice caps disappearing just after our parents retire are only a few of the consequences our generation will inherit. While there are courageous leaders addressing the issue like Former Vice President Al Gore and Former California Assembly Member Fran Pavley, their voices tend to be drowned out by the skeptics and reactionaries in office who have been essentially bought by the big oil lobby.
The problem has been exacerbated by President Bush, whose entire cabinet has direct ties to big oil. They have radically changed the purpose of government regulation from working for the public good the way Franklin Roosevelt used it during the 1930s to solely benefiting the special interests that helped elect Bush in the first place. This has had severe consequences for federally run institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA was created for the purpose of benefiting the masses and protecting the commons, and now the only environment it’s “protecting” is one favoring big business.
Sadly, the most recent casualty of the Bush Administration’s unspoken war on nature is none other than Pavley's 2002 Tailpipe Emissions Reduction bill, the landmark bill recognized as being the first in U.S. history directly combating the climate crisis. Despite its popularity, the bill has essentially been trapped in legal and bureaucratic limbo since the day it was passed.
The legality of the bill passed its first challenge in April 2007 when the State of Massachusetts successfully argued to the Supreme Court that greenhouse gases were a pollutant and were thus, contrary to what the EPA argued, able to be regulated by the institution. In other words, the Supreme Court told the EPA that it had the ability but was not required to do its actual job.
Naturally, (which is probably not the best word to use in this case) Stephen Johnson, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA, stalled on a decision about whether or not the EPA would act on greenhouse gas regulations, which meant he refused to decide whether states could pass laws that required stricter greenhouse gas regulations than federal guidelines. Early last month a federal district court upheld California's right to regulate greenhouse gases as long as a waiver was approved by the EPA, but in an upsetting yet unsurprising turn of events the EPA denied California's waiver –on the same day Bush signed a bi-partisan bill to increase CAFE standards from 25mpg to 35mpg by 2020:
“The Bush administration blocked California's plan to put tighter limits on automobile tailpipe emissions, handing a victory to the auto industry on the same day the president signed an energy bill that mandates the biggest boost in federal fuel-efficiency standards in more than 30 years.
Late yesterday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson blocked California from going further than the federal government does in curbing auto emissions that contribute to global warming, setting up a clash with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
It's poetic injustice at its best. Sign a bill to raise federal fuel efficiency standards while denying states their right to reduce tailpipe emissions. To Bush it's all about control -he and his special interest buddies have it, and they're doing their best to make sure nobody else does.
Fortunately, there are still those in Congress who refuse to allow such corruption to go unanswered. Following Stephen Johnson’s announcement Congressman Henry Waxman, a long-time Valley representative who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has begun a probe into how the administration came to its decision and what legal justification it could possibly have for going against the mission of the EPA.
We’re encouraging everyone to contact Congressman Waxman to support his probe and thank him for the immediacy he has placed on this very big problem.
Congressman Henry Waxman 2204 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-3976 (phone) (202) 225-4099 (fax)
This issue will not go away in our lifetimes, and it’s looking more and more likely that our generation will be paying for our parent generation’s mistakes. So now is the time when we should start getting active and show why we are a generation that represents hope.
The climate crisis is the single greatest challenge in human history, but there’s a blatant dichotomy between how important the issue is with how much of a priority our parent generation places on it. It’s only now that the baby boomers are beginning to retire that we’re beginning to see a precursor to what our generation will need to face. Widespread drought, increasingly intense hurricanes, and the polar ice caps disappearing just after our parents retire are only a few of the consequences our generation will inherit. While there are courageous leaders addressing the issue like Former Vice President Al Gore and Former California Assembly Member Fran Pavley, their voices tend to be drowned out by the skeptics and reactionaries in office who have been essentially bought by the big oil lobby.
The problem has been exacerbated by President Bush, whose entire cabinet has direct ties to big oil. They have radically changed the purpose of government regulation from working for the public good the way Franklin Roosevelt used it during the 1930s to solely benefiting the special interests that helped elect Bush in the first place. This has had severe consequences for federally run institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA was created for the purpose of benefiting the masses and protecting the commons, and now the only environment it’s “protecting” is one favoring big business.
Sadly, the most recent casualty of the Bush Administration’s unspoken war on nature is none other than Pavley's 2002 Tailpipe Emissions Reduction bill, the landmark bill recognized as being the first in U.S. history directly combating the climate crisis. Despite its popularity, the bill has essentially been trapped in legal and bureaucratic limbo since the day it was passed.
The legality of the bill passed its first challenge in April 2007 when the State of Massachusetts successfully argued to the Supreme Court that greenhouse gases were a pollutant and were thus, contrary to what the EPA argued, able to be regulated by the institution. In other words, the Supreme Court told the EPA that it had the ability but was not required to do its actual job.
Naturally, (which is probably not the best word to use in this case) Stephen Johnson, the Bush-appointed head of the EPA, stalled on a decision about whether or not the EPA would act on greenhouse gas regulations, which meant he refused to decide whether states could pass laws that required stricter greenhouse gas regulations than federal guidelines. Early last month a federal district court upheld California's right to regulate greenhouse gases as long as a waiver was approved by the EPA, but in an upsetting yet unsurprising turn of events the EPA denied California's waiver –on the same day Bush signed a bi-partisan bill to increase CAFE standards from 25mpg to 35mpg by 2020:
“The Bush administration blocked California's plan to put tighter limits on automobile tailpipe emissions, handing a victory to the auto industry on the same day the president signed an energy bill that mandates the biggest boost in federal fuel-efficiency standards in more than 30 years.
Late yesterday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson blocked California from going further than the federal government does in curbing auto emissions that contribute to global warming, setting up a clash with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.”
It's poetic injustice at its best. Sign a bill to raise federal fuel efficiency standards while denying states their right to reduce tailpipe emissions. To Bush it's all about control -he and his special interest buddies have it, and they're doing their best to make sure nobody else does.
Fortunately, there are still those in Congress who refuse to allow such corruption to go unanswered. Following Stephen Johnson’s announcement Congressman Henry Waxman, a long-time Valley representative who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has begun a probe into how the administration came to its decision and what legal justification it could possibly have for going against the mission of the EPA.
We’re encouraging everyone to contact Congressman Waxman to support his probe and thank him for the immediacy he has placed on this very big problem.
Congressman Henry Waxman 2204 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-3976 (phone) (202) 225-4099 (fax)
This issue will not go away in our lifetimes, and it’s looking more and more likely that our generation will be paying for our parent generation’s mistakes. So now is the time when we should start getting active and show why we are a generation that represents hope.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
New Hampshire Debate Analysis
Editor's Note: This blog post was submitted by E-board member Jesse Switzer. Thanks, Jesse!
Can You Really Lose The Battle And Still Win The War: An Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in New Hampshire on September 26
By Jesse M. Switzer
Presidential Primary Debate. Is there any combination of words quite as thrilling to the human soul? Perhaps. But not to folks like you and me who spend so many waking hours pondering, “…just who came out triumphant in the most recent Democratic Presidential Primary Debate in New Hampshire.” The answer, as you may have guessed, is complicated, as is anything of importance and consequence.
Undoubtedly the biggest news to come out this debate was Sen. Clinton’s reversal on previously stated positions regarding the use of torture. Prior to that fateful evening, Sen. Clinton had suggested in interviews with the press that torture may be used under certain circumstances as long it was done “within the rule of law”. On Wednesday’s night’s debate she flatly stated, “As a matter of policy it [torture] cannot be American policy, period.”. This was in response to being given a hypothetical scenario in which the White House had in its custody a terrorist with knowledge of a massive attack on U.S. soil and has just three days to thwart it. Tim Russert, who hosted the debate, sought to add drama to the moment and subsequently informed Sen. Clinton that this was indeed her husband’s hypothetical and at the time he thought torture would be one possible avenue they could explore. Oh schmack, Ms. Clinton! …But, as usual, Sen. Clinton was able to turn lemons into lemonade and sharply responded, “Well he’s not up on stage here right now.” But Russert didn’t want to let her get away that easy, pointing out that her husband still disagrees with her. Touché, but again Hillary has never been one to back down from a challenge, which was evident as she cleverly retorted, “Well, I’ll talk to him later.” Now not only did she inspire laughter and admiration from a white male such as myself, but she probably had every woman in the country thinkin’ “Yea! You go girl!” She is a polished master and she certainly succeeded in what should be her number one goal as front-runner in this race, namely: be competent, fly low and avoid the radar.
More eyes were probably fixated on the Democratic Party’s charismatic new wunderkind, Sen. Barack Obama, as his performance has been surprisingly weak at previous debates and time is running out to fully capitalize on the meteoric rise he has enjoyed since his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. Unfortunately, one could easily argue (and I will) that he left much to be desired in this latest showdown. But this is not to say that his performance wasn’t comparable to Sen. Clinton’s, in fact it was entirely too similar. Sen. Obama needs to address the public as a bold visionary – and one that actually has said vision. His harshest critics claim he is inexperienced and lacks the skills necessary to lead the country. The only way to dispel that notion is to come out with concrete ideas that at the same time show that he is radically different from the status quo. Obama is caught in a catch-22. His campaign touts that he appeals to a broad cross-sector of society, including Republicans, which judging by his fundraising efforts is very true; however, specific details and introducing revolutionary ways of doing things poses exceedingly difficult obstacles to keeping that coalition intact. Be that as it may, Obama cannot continue down this path of showing up to debates with centrist ideas like including additional nuclear power plants as part of his energy plan, while neglecting to work as hard as he possibly can to demonstrate that he can and is willing to propose ideas that are radically different as to define himself as his own breed of candidate, which he most certainly is.
Sen. Edwards did a much better job defining himself as the anti-Hillary on stage, blasting the Senator’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group by stating, “I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step to war with Iran.” But the former Senator from North Carolina fell short on his answer to a question on whether or not he regretted some rather extravagant campaign expenditures and contributions, especially considering his campaign platform has been largely based around fighting poverty. Edwards got a bit whiney and defensive as he kept repeating the phrase, “…but look at what I have done,” as if to say “…well, yeah but I’ve also done good things too and I’ve corrected some of my mistakes.” In Edwards’ defense subjects like $400 haircuts, extravagant and morally dubious as they might be, are non-issues relatively speaking and epitomize the kind of superficial nitpicking which have contributed to the death of thoughtful politicking. And Sen. Edwards pointed out some solid examples of how his deeds speak for themselves as far as his dedication to fighting economic injustice. But take a lesson from Hillary, my friend, if you’ve made a mistake own up and move on, and in doing so try to capitalize on the lesson you’ve learned. Edwards used this strategy so well with his Iraq War vote, why can’t he do it with something comparatively moronic like this? Edwards on the whole inched toward the winner’s seat, besting Obama in his performance, but at this point he’s really got bolt to catch up with Sen. Clinton.
Gov. Richards had a few shining moments, not the least of which came at the start of the debate when he was able differentiate himself from the other leading candidates by speaking with some authority on the issue of removing all our troops from Iraq without sounding like a pie-in-the-sky ultra liberal. Generally speaking, however, Gov. Richardson blended in with the other second tier candidates, who sadly became filler for the rest of the debate. None of the second tier candidates were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fray in way that would be appealing to a wide section of voters…although, Kucinich and Gravel certainly received some applause from the university heavy crowd when they revealed they would be inclined to lower the drinking age. Thus is it is safe to say that while not total losers, the second tiers were the closest to being labeled as such.
I contend that none of these fine individuals are losers seeing as our dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates outshines the Republican roster any day!
Can You Really Lose The Battle And Still Win The War: An Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate in New Hampshire on September 26
By Jesse M. Switzer
Presidential Primary Debate. Is there any combination of words quite as thrilling to the human soul? Perhaps. But not to folks like you and me who spend so many waking hours pondering, “…just who came out triumphant in the most recent Democratic Presidential Primary Debate in New Hampshire.” The answer, as you may have guessed, is complicated, as is anything of importance and consequence.
Undoubtedly the biggest news to come out this debate was Sen. Clinton’s reversal on previously stated positions regarding the use of torture. Prior to that fateful evening, Sen. Clinton had suggested in interviews with the press that torture may be used under certain circumstances as long it was done “within the rule of law”. On Wednesday’s night’s debate she flatly stated, “As a matter of policy it [torture] cannot be American policy, period.”. This was in response to being given a hypothetical scenario in which the White House had in its custody a terrorist with knowledge of a massive attack on U.S. soil and has just three days to thwart it. Tim Russert, who hosted the debate, sought to add drama to the moment and subsequently informed Sen. Clinton that this was indeed her husband’s hypothetical and at the time he thought torture would be one possible avenue they could explore. Oh schmack, Ms. Clinton! …But, as usual, Sen. Clinton was able to turn lemons into lemonade and sharply responded, “Well he’s not up on stage here right now.” But Russert didn’t want to let her get away that easy, pointing out that her husband still disagrees with her. Touché, but again Hillary has never been one to back down from a challenge, which was evident as she cleverly retorted, “Well, I’ll talk to him later.” Now not only did she inspire laughter and admiration from a white male such as myself, but she probably had every woman in the country thinkin’ “Yea! You go girl!” She is a polished master and she certainly succeeded in what should be her number one goal as front-runner in this race, namely: be competent, fly low and avoid the radar.
More eyes were probably fixated on the Democratic Party’s charismatic new wunderkind, Sen. Barack Obama, as his performance has been surprisingly weak at previous debates and time is running out to fully capitalize on the meteoric rise he has enjoyed since his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. Unfortunately, one could easily argue (and I will) that he left much to be desired in this latest showdown. But this is not to say that his performance wasn’t comparable to Sen. Clinton’s, in fact it was entirely too similar. Sen. Obama needs to address the public as a bold visionary – and one that actually has said vision. His harshest critics claim he is inexperienced and lacks the skills necessary to lead the country. The only way to dispel that notion is to come out with concrete ideas that at the same time show that he is radically different from the status quo. Obama is caught in a catch-22. His campaign touts that he appeals to a broad cross-sector of society, including Republicans, which judging by his fundraising efforts is very true; however, specific details and introducing revolutionary ways of doing things poses exceedingly difficult obstacles to keeping that coalition intact. Be that as it may, Obama cannot continue down this path of showing up to debates with centrist ideas like including additional nuclear power plants as part of his energy plan, while neglecting to work as hard as he possibly can to demonstrate that he can and is willing to propose ideas that are radically different as to define himself as his own breed of candidate, which he most certainly is.
Sen. Edwards did a much better job defining himself as the anti-Hillary on stage, blasting the Senator’s vote to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group by stating, “I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step to war with Iran.” But the former Senator from North Carolina fell short on his answer to a question on whether or not he regretted some rather extravagant campaign expenditures and contributions, especially considering his campaign platform has been largely based around fighting poverty. Edwards got a bit whiney and defensive as he kept repeating the phrase, “…but look at what I have done,” as if to say “…well, yeah but I’ve also done good things too and I’ve corrected some of my mistakes.” In Edwards’ defense subjects like $400 haircuts, extravagant and morally dubious as they might be, are non-issues relatively speaking and epitomize the kind of superficial nitpicking which have contributed to the death of thoughtful politicking. And Sen. Edwards pointed out some solid examples of how his deeds speak for themselves as far as his dedication to fighting economic injustice. But take a lesson from Hillary, my friend, if you’ve made a mistake own up and move on, and in doing so try to capitalize on the lesson you’ve learned. Edwards used this strategy so well with his Iraq War vote, why can’t he do it with something comparatively moronic like this? Edwards on the whole inched toward the winner’s seat, besting Obama in his performance, but at this point he’s really got bolt to catch up with Sen. Clinton.
Gov. Richards had a few shining moments, not the least of which came at the start of the debate when he was able differentiate himself from the other leading candidates by speaking with some authority on the issue of removing all our troops from Iraq without sounding like a pie-in-the-sky ultra liberal. Generally speaking, however, Gov. Richardson blended in with the other second tier candidates, who sadly became filler for the rest of the debate. None of the second tier candidates were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the fray in way that would be appealing to a wide section of voters…although, Kucinich and Gravel certainly received some applause from the university heavy crowd when they revealed they would be inclined to lower the drinking age. Thus is it is safe to say that while not total losers, the second tiers were the closest to being labeled as such.
I contend that none of these fine individuals are losers seeing as our dynamic and diverse lineup of candidates outshines the Republican roster any day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)